Karnail Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the speaking order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioners for the arrears of revised pension on higher wages has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay arrears of pension on revision of pension on higher wages as per the mandate issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.10013-10014 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.33032-33033 of 2015), titled as R.C Gupta and others vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others, decided on 04.10.2026 and subsequent to the Notification No.Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96/Vol.II dated 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-2).

On 11.02.2026, the following order was passed:-

"Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the speaking order dated 06.11.2025 (AnnexureP-9) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for the arrears of revised pension on higher wages has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay arrears of pension on revision of pension on higher wages as per the mandate issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.10013-10014 of 2016 (arising out of SLP(C) No.33032-33033 of 2015), titled as R.C Gupta and others vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others, decided on 04.10.2026 and subsequent to the Notification No. Pension-I/ 12/ 33/ EPS Amendment/96/Vol.II Dated 23.3.2017 (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that pursuant to the demand raised by the respondents, the petitioners deposited the requisite amount along with interest and thereafter, their pension was revised on the basis of actual salary, however, despite such revision, the arrears of pension arising therefrom have not been released to the petitioners in entirety.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and seeks time to file reply.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply a copy of paperbook to counsel opposite during course of the day.

Let notice be issued to respondents No.1 and 4, returnable for 09.04.2026.

To be taken up immediately after the Urgent List.

Reply, if any, be filed in the Registry of this Court at least one week before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to counsel opposite."

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 are ad idem that the impugned order has not been passed regarding the claim made by the petitioner seeking arrears pursuant to the deposit of the requisite amount.

In view the above, impugned order is set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to treat the present petition as comprehensive representation and decide the same by passing a speaking order with regard to claim of the petitioners for arrears of revised pension on higher wages, after affording an opportunity of hearing to them, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Further, the decision taken on the representation, shall be conveyed to the petitioners.

Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to them forthwith by the competent authority.